How to Define/Measure Ski Area Size

CWHappyRN":36xs6qfx said:

I am wondering about a website that I found that claims that Heavenly Valley Ski Resort is the largest Ski Resort in the United States? Anyone know, care to know, or have a clue? Not that I really care one way or another about it; but, I dreamed of larger areas existing somewhere in the United States! Carol

Click to expand...

Heavenly's not the biggest in the U.S. but IIRC at one time several decades ago it did claim that title. Heavenly is 4,800 acres, although from what I hear much of that is not skiable/is only seldom skiable at the lower elevations on the California side. Lowly Powder Mountain, Utah reports the most acreage of any single ski area in the U.S. at 5,500 acres - as much as Big Sky and Moonlight Basin combined - and all of that is eminently skiable. Some of the other biggies:

• Vail, CO: 5,289 acres
• Squaw Valley, CA: 4,000 acres
• Big Sky, MT: 3,812 acres
• Mt. Bachelor, OR: 3,683 acres
• Mammoth, CA: 3,500 acres
• Park City, UT: 3,300 acres
• Whitefish (nee Big Mountain), MT: 3,000 acres

I can't think of any others that exceed 3,000 acres. If you expand your criteria to North America, Whistler Blackcomb is tops with 8,171 acres.

To address the original question, I'll let Tony provide the definitive answer but AFAIK you'll find no correlation.

admin,

I'll also add to your list, from your neck of the woods, Alta-bird if you count the interconnect: 2200 + 2500 = 4700 acres, almost all of which is skiable.

user":1e3ze2xi said:

admin,

I'll also add to your list, from your neck of the woods, Alta-bird if you count the interconnect: 2200 + 2500 = 4700 acres, almost all of which is skiable.

Click to expand...

True, user, but I restricted the list to single ski areas that are connected and under common ownership. Hence that Big Sky/Moonlight didn't count in my books, nor did AltaBird. By that definition, Whistler Blackcomb is questionable as well, at least until the Peak-to-Peak gondi is completed..

And BTW, user, I didn't take the opportunity to properly welcome you around here. Hope to see your thoughts often -- it's a great group, and while the volume may be lower than on other ski fora the signal-to-noise ratio here is wonderfully high.

And BTW, user, I didn't take the opportunity to properly welcome you around here. Hope to see your thoughts often -- it's a great group, and while the volume may be lower than on other ski fora the signal-to-noise ratio here is wonderfully high.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

Tony Crocker":10vszmig said:

Acreage sometime works as a good measure of size and sometimes not. Heavenly is a good example of not IMHO. There's a lot of flat unusable acreage between layers. I don't think anyone who has skied all 3 areas would think that Heavenly is even close to Squaw or Mammoth in usable ski terrain.

Big Sky/Moonlight also has a fair amount of unusable terrain, for the opposite reason of sheer cliffs that are never covered. I don't think there's much argument against Vail having the most usable terrain within a single area in the U.S. But Whistler alone is close to that size, and with Blackcomb included has far more.

Click to expand...

If you believe marketing department measurements, Powder Mountain has slightly more acreage than Vail. And you know from your visit there last year that just about everything within bounds at Pow Mow is skiable, although a fair bit requires some schlepping and/or traversing.

Having finally seen PowMow last year, my opinion stands. The extensive flats/traverses mean less usable terrain. I don't in any way diminish PowMow's virtues, as there are few places with that much opportunity to ski untracked for several days after new snow. But to say that it's comparable in terrain scale/variety to Vail or Mammoth or AltaBird, I don't buy that.

Variety? I'll agree. But scale? If the numbers are accurate, well...5,500 acres is 5,500 acres. Low angle does not equal flat. About the only true flats are along the ridgetop getting out to Cobabe Canyon, etc. I'll admit that there's a good deal of low-angle skiing, especially out in the ski area's eastern reaches, but not everyone is looking for steeps.

Interesting topic that this thread has turned into (now separated from original http://www.firsttracksonline.com/boards ... hp?p=26062). I may be biased having worked a couple of winters at Heavenly, but if you know where to go, I think it skis at least as 'big' as Squallywood (with fewer cliffs of course). Of course one key to that is ignoring much of the formal Heavenly trail map and having locals knowledge of where to go and where the boundaries are. Some of the best single diamond tree skiing on the planet can be found in various places IMHO - though it does take a decent snow year.

Just as interesting is the concept for at least the expert level folks on this forum as to 'usable' acres or places that 'ski bigger' or 'ski smaller' than they should based on objective numbers. I'd put Jackson Hole for example on the 'skis bigger' than it's listed 2500 acres - at least when the Hobacks are open.

Admin":kyshumwo said:

True, user, but I restricted the list to single ski areas that are connected and under common ownership. Hence that Big Sky/Moonlight didn't count in my books, nor did AltaBird. By that definition, Whistler Blackcomb is questionable as well, at least until the Peak-to-Peak gondi is completed..

Click to expand...

A minor point, but technically, Whistler and Blackcomb are indeed connected - it just happens to be only at the base at the moment. But they are under common ownership, ever since Intrawest purchased Whistler several years ago.

Admin":1ryqi63z said:

If the numbers are accurate, well...5,500 acres is 5,500 acres. Low angle does not equal flat. ... but not everyone is looking for steeps.

Click to expand...

It just shows that total acreage is as flawed as any other single metric, like "number of trails" or "miles of trails". A single visit easily shows how much of AltaBird's 4700 acres is totally unskiable.

EMSC brings up an interesting idea. The "usable" acreage at any particular resort will vary based on the skier's expertise, of course. All the terrain at Silverton is useless if you're a beginner, while the vastness of Snowmass doesn't do you any good if you like steeps all day long. I'm in the bumps all day long, so Mary Jane has much more "usable" terrain for me than say, JH.

Admin":2k3stpq6 said:

user":2k3stpq6 said:

admin,

...By that definition, Whistler Blackcomb is questionable as well, at least until the Peak-to-Peak gondi is completed..

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Both Whistler and Blackcomb ski "big" already and I doubt that the Peak-to-Peak gondi will make it ski "bigger". First, the peak-to-peak is more a scenic transfer vehicle and less a ski lift. Second, since both peaks share similarly wide ranges of altitude-defined weather and offer similar terrain, I question that the Peak-to-Peak gondi will have that much practical use for the typical skier--except for rapid exit when fog moves into the 7th Heaven area. To me the Peak-to-Peak gondi is mostly a diversion that helps marketers attract nonskiers and summer guests.

Jeff

look'n4powder":1vt9jg0b said:

To me the Peak-to-Peak gondi is mostly a diversion that helps marketers attract nonskiers and summer guests.

Click to expand...

And a massive amount of marketing power when the world will see lots of it during the Olympics in about 2.5 years. A certain number of skiers will go to W-B precisely because of the new gondi and it's spectacular novelty. A large number of skier visits this past season to Snowbird were due solely to the new tunnel into Mineral Basin.

My homegrown (mid-1990's) metric for defining size is 1 = 1 skiable line/trail of 1,000 vertical feet. I still use this when writing ski resort guides to apportion terrain by ability level (trail maps' relative ratings are almost useless on an absolute scale) and direction of exposure.

I do not publish the absolute totals (for example I rated Vail at 112 before Blue Sky Basin) because it's still difficult how to count open bowls and gladed terrain. I do not exclude anything from "usable terrain" based upon personal preference. I think most skiers expect accessible terrain to be lift serviced, so I exclude stuff that's more than 5-10 minutes hike above the lifts.

I do think my method has the advantage of making areas like Jackson and Altabird bigger relative to someplace like Snowmass than measuring acreage does.

Of course one key to that is ignoring much of the formal Heavenly trail map and having locals knowledge of where to go and where the boundaries are. Some of the best single diamond tree skiing on the planet can be found in various places IMHO - though it does take a decent snow year.

Click to expand...

I do agree with this opinion of Heavenly's tree skiing. Practically anyplace on the Nevada side with adequate pitch can be skied in the trees. But it's still full of flat terrain traps if you don't know where you're going. And I would not count the long sustained pitches under the gondola because 1) It's technically out of bounds. 2) It's quite rare for it to be adequately covered all the way to the bottom. Remember Heavenly averages only 248 inches snowfall at 8,400 feet, so it's not going to be skiable in steep natural terrain down to 6,500 very often. That's why Gunbarrel/East Bowl have snowmaking.

The other interesting, but perhaps a little bit obvious observation about mountain stats is that you'll notice, Eastern resorts rely for the most part on trail count. Then, to prop up those numbers, they often split many of their longer trails into "upper", "middle" and "lower" parts, adding to the trail count. Western resorts don't bother with this. It's funny that Killington, for instance claims over 200 trails, while the Bird, for example lists less than 100. Of course, Eastern resorts have narrow cut trails in general, so the idea of ski acreage is almost foreign to them.

In the end, it's all about marketing...

user":2myfeowf said:

The other interesting, but perhaps a little bit obvious observation about mountain stats is that you'll notice, Eastern resorts rely for the most part on trail count. Then, to prop up those numbers, they often split many of their longer trails into "upper", "middle" and "lower" parts, adding to the trail count. Western resorts don't bother with this. It's funny that Killington, for instance claims over 200 trails, while the Bird, for example lists less than 100. Of course, Eastern resorts have narrow cut trails in general, so the idea of ski acreage is almost foreign to them.

In the end, it's all about marketing...

Click to expand...

Termas de Chillan claims something like 21 runs versus 129 at Bromont QC. What is wrong with this picture. :shock:

user":jiduvu4c said:

In the end, it's all about marketing...

Click to expand...

Roger that. I remember when Killington's trail count went up one summer by about one-third without felling a single tree.

Ski area size is kind of like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, saying in 1964 (and I paraphrase), "I know obscenity when I see it."

I agree with admin and Potter Stewart. And on that basis I made the comments about Heavenly vs. Squaw and Mammoth and Vail vs. Powder Mt.

Trail counts are useless as a size measure. I do rely on them to calculate "percent of area open" in the early season.

Within Colorado the acreage measures are somewhat useful. I believe Colorado Ski Country tries to get all of the areas to report acreage consistently. Since most (but not all) Colorado areas have similar topography, the acreage comparisons are less likely to be apples-and-oranges than comparing across regions.

FYI to Patrick, by my system Portillo, Valle Nevado and La Parva are very similar in size. I presume you would rate Chillan bigger than any of these 3 individually.

Tony Crocker":k9s8ofny said:

I agree with admin and Potter Stewart. And on that basis I made the comments about Heavenly vs. Squaw and Mammoth and Vail vs. Powder Mt.

Click to expand...

Come on, now. It may not be nosebleed-steep, but when you rode the Hidden Lake Express and looked on each side to see in-bounds terrain for ridge after ridge as far as the eye could see, you weren't impressed?